Ya just gotta wait of it!!

[LongHaul]

Seeing as how Trevorum brought up the Cheney thing again, even though I've already said I think taking shots at Dick on that one are out of line, I knew I wouldn't have to wait long before this administration gave my cause to cry WHAT? So! How do ya all feel about turning over, what is it 8 of our ports to the UAE? I mean only 2 of the 911 terrorists were actually from Dubai even though most of the 911 terrorists were receiving money from there. Hey we only actually inspect 5% of what comes in that way anywhy so whats the worry right? Besides with our efforts in Iraq going as they are we need all the friends over there we can get right.

War on Terror my !@#$%

LongHaul

[gwd-scouter]

Administration says they were very carefully screened. Gives me a really warm fuzzy secure feeling.

[GernBlansten]

Look, Bush is saying he wasn't even aware of it. Can't blame him.

[LongHaul]

Even if we give him the doubt about "being aware of it" He was on the news today saying "We had the Brits managing one(a port) why not the Arabs?" I wonder how many of the 911 terrorists got money from the Queen. Eamonn you have any contacts who may know how much the Queen ponied up to level the towers? His people are trying to give control of 8 US ports of entry to the UAE and he doesn't know anything about it? Like I said all ya gotta do is wait for it, the hits never stop.

LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Eamonn]

I just spent the night in front of the telly!!

PBS had The Royal Year followed by Monty Python.

I didn't see anyone passing the plate collecting a few quid for terrorist organizations.

Not wanting to change the thread but...

I wonder what some American Judges would think about the jailing of Abu Hamza al-Masri,the radical Islamist cleric jailed for seven years for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred?

Sentencing Abu Hamza, the judge, Mr Justice Hughes, said he had "helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice".

Would this go against the first amendment?

 

Back to the ports.

I say we make Wal-Mart take over the management, maybe then they will see how much they really are importing. (Joke)

But being more serious from what I have heard on CNN it seems that the entire process of how these contracts are awarded needs to be looked at very closely.

Of course the U.S.Coast Guard might end up with a full time graffiti patrol. Some of our ports have terminals which are operated by Danish companies. Who knows one bored Danish artist could draw some offensive graffiti which might cause offense to a visiting UAE worker and we end up with docks full of overripe bananas.

Eamonn.

[LongHaul]

I do stand corrected it's 6 ports not 8 Whew! thats a relief. That same guy who did such a great job of anticipating Katrina was telling the press how they had checked the Dubia company out and found no irregularities. He assured us we would be as safe with the UAE in charge as we are now. I find that frieghtening. Bush was quoted as saying "This administration does not discriminate against Arab intrests." I wonder how the people in Iraq feel about that statement.

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle]

What really gets me, and I havent heard it yet here or anywhere, how did we get to the point that a US company cant do this? Is operating a seaport such a complex operation that no US company can handle the logistics? I dont mean a US company should get the contract because they are American, but because they are the best at it. There are so many things we lead the world in, how did seaport operation fall to the wayside? Who was it who said the business of America is business?

[Lisabob]

OGE, US companies aren't interested in being in this business and my guess is that they wouldn't make enough profit to make it worthwhile (in their eyes).

 

I think this whole deal has been mis-handled by the exec. branch. With careful investigation and appropriate communication, many of the perhaps unjustified fears that are now swirling around could have been laid to rest. But this was sprung on an unsuspecting Congress too - including the leaders of the Republican majority, who might have at least expected better communication within their own party in the exec branch. In my view this speaks as much to the bungling of communication and hording of information (heck, even the president seemed to be out of the loop on this one) that seems pervasive in this administration, as to any major national security issues.

 

Either way, at this point I really doubt that the president could make a veto stick. If nothing else, all those members of Congress who are up for re-election are unlikely to want to be in a position where they have to explain to angry constituents why they supported this deal.

 

Lisa'bob

[GernBlansten]

Whether its a good idea or not to allow a foriegn company to control our ports, the phrase "Politically tone deaf" applys.

The Bush administration has been using fear of terrorist attacks as their method to advance their agenda. I think this deal has stripped the veneer from that. I don't think they are really interested in protecting Americans from terrorist attacks. There are so many holes left unfilled from the 911 commission report. The war in Iraq is a breeding ground for more Jihadists than democratic converts.

And I'm with OGE. Why can't American companies compete for this? Are they barred? Why are we outsourcing jobs that we should be able to do ourselves? I think this is the bigger tragedy. Has America become so inefficient they can no longer support our own infractructure?

[scoutingagain]

The port issue is less about security than confidence in the current administration. In principle, I actually agree with the administration that there is no reason a company based in a friendly Arab country shouldn't be able to bid on and execute contracts that are let to any other international firm, provided they meet the same security standards anyone else is asked to meet.

 

But as pointed when the same group that tells you there are WMD in Iraq, a prescription drug benefit will only cost a third of what it really will end up costing, that they didn't expect the levies to break....says trust us, these guys are OK...well now even the leadership of their own political party doesn't believe them anymore. Wonder how many Republicans will be asking the President to campaign with them this fall?

 

The sad thing is now we are stuck for another 3 years with an executive branch that has little or no credibility with members of either party. As far as I can tell about the only Federal branch of government that might actually do any governing will be the Supreme Court.

 

SA

[SR540Beaver]

I'm somewhat surprised that Halliburton wasn't enlisted thru an overpriced no contract bid to run the ports.

 

Honestly, I don't know why Bush feels obligated to support this deal when he wasn't even aware of it to begin with. I fully supported him with our actions in Afghanistan after 9/11. He lost me when we invaded Iraq who posed no serious threat to US security. We have wasted 100's of billions of dollars that I do not feel have made us any safer. The money could have been better spent securing our borders and ports and come much closer to actually providing us better security. The argument that it is better to fight them over there instead of on the streets of our cities just does not hold water. Who honestly believes that battalions of Islamic radicals are going to be parachuting into our cities and fighting hand to hand?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Eamonn,

A show about the royals followed by Monty Python? How could you tell the difference?

 

As with just about all business these days, the management of the ports are probably being sold off because there isn't enough profit in it for U.S. companies. The same reason we're sending our jobs overseas, sending our technology overseas, etc, etc. Profit is all. The almight buck rules. 25 million people in the U.S. are getting food stamps; thankfully, we can take comfort that many companies are declaring record profits and their CEOs have more income than some countries.

 

This whole episode should bring some focus to just how big a joke the so-called "war on terror" is. Al Queda is bigger than it was before the Gulf War, our mismanagement of the Iraq war is leading to ample recruiting opportunities for the insurgents (I hesitate to call them "terrorists" because that label really depends on what end of the bullet you're on). Civil liberties are being trampled, our international image is in shambles.

 

From what I've heard, the due diligence on managing of the ports is really quite extensive. Even with that, tho, you'd think that a transaction such as this would raise some red flags in the Administration and cause them to be more forthcoming about what was going on. The question is whether that was inadvertant, or another example of the secretive nature of this Administration.

 

We're really at the point where we need to find some people of true integrity and vision to run our country, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Sadly, almost none of the present members of the elected government would seem to qualify.

[LongHaul]

Scoutingagain,

      You used the term "friendly Arab country". Can you tell me which of the Arab countries fall into that category? I cant think of any Arab country that fully supports our efforts to bring the terrorists to justice. How many Arabs have been brought before Arab courts to answer charges stemming from 911? What happened to the money trail which lead to Dubai? Even the Saudis dont fully support our War on Terror. How can we justify allowing these same people to control a U.S. port of entry?

      My suggestion is to turn the ports over to the military. Those men and women are the lowest paid bunch I know of when it comes to jobs like this. It would increase the available numbers for private presidential wars and add yet another cost over run line item opportunity to the military budget. Looks like upside all around to me.

 LongHaul

[Lisabob]

Gern: No, American companies are not barred from bidding on jobs like this. However, there are very few American companies in this business. Most American ports have been operated by foreign companies for about the last 20 years. Further, this was not a bidding situation in the case of the 6 east coast ports in question; a company (British) already had the contract, and that company was sold to another company (Dubai Ports World), along with the contracts.

 

LongHaul: One might argue that Arab countries are justified in lending half-hearted support to the methods that the US has used in our "war on terror" because those methods are perceived as inadequate and ill-considered. I'm not an apologist for repression or under-the-table supporters of terrorism. The Saudi strategy in the 1990s in particular appears to have been short sighted (active gov't support for wahabi sects of Islam, which tended to be virulently anti-western in tone, was apparently calculated to deflect criticism of the Saudi regime. In the meantime, crackdowns on political dissidents who wanted something closer to democracy didn't help either.) However I can see why they don't agree with our approach to global terrorism, particularly Guantanamo Bay, whatever "secret prisons" may be proven to exist in the future, and the Iraq war and aftermath.

 

As for "friendly" Arab countries, yes I think there are several who none the less disagree with the way the Bush admin. handles itself. Jordan is the first one I'd name. Still, I agree with Gern that there was an element of tone deafness on the admin's part if they didn't think that this current deal would get a lot of scrutiny.

 

Lisa'bob

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, so on the scale of things, is this "equal to" or "less" or "more" than when Jimmy Carter turned over the Panama Canal to Panama?